Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60448 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2004 06:52:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2004 06:52:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 98595 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2004 06:52:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 98558 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2004 06:52:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Users List" Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 98543 invoked by uid 99); 11 Nov 2004 06:52:04 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.218.93.13] (HELO web41014.mail.yahoo.com) (66.218.93.13) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:52:04 -0800 Received: (qmail 73567 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Nov 2004 06:52:01 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=TdrYzzkoy0XLwKScraLJncEp9KCaGHSHVj9BAKZwZRKwKTppjN79GBDNlMcI2vEbKslJ20JItGx8FjszU13dZuY52KKqRh6eYvgv1kesLJBMIXgWmXLxfrSe4vp9+ck0ioG1kNQ2K1fRarTQYY6f2m9s4gIg61U67ZSeJnGlRWI= ; Message-ID: <20041111065200.73552.qmail@web41014.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [67.171.39.159] by web41014.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:52:00 PST Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:52:00 -0800 (PST) From: Reply-To: yahootintin-lucene@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Search scalability To: Lucene Users List In-Reply-To: <20041111053616.79863.qmail@web12707.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Does it take 800MB of RAM to load that index into a RAMDirectory? Or are only some of the files loaded into RAM? --- Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Hello, > > 100 parallel searches going against a single index on a single > disk > means a lot of disk seeks all happening at once. One simple > way of > working around this is to load your FSDirectory into > RAMDirectory. > This should be faster (could you report your > observations/comparisons?). You can also try using ramfs if > you are > using Linux. > > Otis > > --- Ravi wrote: > > > We have one large index for a document repository of > 800,000 > > documents. > > The size of the index is 800MB. When we do searches against > the > > index, > > it takes 300-500ms for a single search. We wanted to test > the > > scalability and tried 100 parallel searches against the > index with > > the > > same query and the average response time was 13 seconds. We > used a > > simple IndexSearcher. Same searcher object was shared by all > the > > searches. I'm sure people have success in configuring lucene > for > > better > > scalability. Can somebody share their approach? > > > > Thanks > > Ravi. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: > lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org